Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, ACJ, SATYEN VAIDYA,J
Patel-Gammon JV – Appellant
Versus
SJVN Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed order dated 15.12.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in OMP No.189 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2019 whereby the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “Code”) seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
2. The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2019. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.129.51 crores along with interest pendent lite and future @ Rs.12% per annum against the defendant.
4. The premise of the suit as culled out from the contents of plaint is that the plaintiff had awarded major civil works being Package-I and Package-II relating to execution of 412 MW Rampur Hydro Electric Project (for short, “RHEP”) on 01.02.2007 to the defendant, after due evaluation by the Tender Evaluation Committee. It is averred that in pursuance to the notification dated 28.05.2008 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the labourers engaged in the construction of Hydro Electric Projects (for sho
A plaint must disclose a clear and enforceable cause of action; if it does not, it can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
The court established that the starting point for limitation under the Limitation Act depends on when the right to sue accrues, not merely on the date of breach or completion of work.
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear claims under construction contracts barred from arbitration, provided they arise within the limitation period set by specific contract conditions.
The lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.
The court upheld the binding nature of the contract, ruling that the Plaintiff's claims were untenable due to failure to exercise contractual options and were barred by limitation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
